Hi all
I really want to increase my reading speed and comprehension, but I don't know which methods are beneficial, and which are scams. I feel I can only read as fast as I can imagine someone speaking, and I was told I have to get rid of the internal voice in order to read faster.
Anyone know what methods actually work, and aren't scams?
Speed reading
-
Mr. PC
- Posts: 617
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Speed reading
I found this site, http://www.readingsoft.com/freader.html, and tested my reading speed, which is 213 words per minute. Apparently some people can get up to 1000, and have perfect comprehension.
Also, various strategies I've read are - reading upside down, listening to music, not listening to music, eye stretches (I feel my eyes move faster than I can read, so I don't understand this one in the least). I wish there was a way of knowing which method words, and which doesn't, before investing time into it. I don't think there are any scientific studies proving any methods of speed reading work, but if there exists people who can do 1000 wpm, then there must be some way of doing that, and they *must* be doing it without heading dialogue in their head; I doubt they can hear dialogue that fast.
Also, various strategies I've read are - reading upside down, listening to music, not listening to music, eye stretches (I feel my eyes move faster than I can read, so I don't understand this one in the least). I wish there was a way of knowing which method words, and which doesn't, before investing time into it. I don't think there are any scientific studies proving any methods of speed reading work, but if there exists people who can do 1000 wpm, then there must be some way of doing that, and they *must* be doing it without heading dialogue in their head; I doubt they can hear dialogue that fast.
Re: Speed reading
Speed reading is pretty much useless. It just allows you to get a general idea from a very descriptive text, such as a novel, and defeats the whole purpose of a novel which is to entertain visually. It doesn't really work that well on technical text or learning textbooks.
It's true that most people subvocalize while they read with their 'inner voice' or outloud even, and this tremendously slows down their reading, and removing this is a good goal.
We think in images, even if we don't realize it on the surface. Our brain works by stimulus>response, like a pattern generator. When a stimulus, such as the word 'cat', stimulates the brain, the image of a cat or whatever 'cat' means to you will appear, even if for a split moment that you don't even realize, as an image. Most people are desensitized to this phenomenon unless they are very visual in their daily life - people such as artists or inventors.
Simply by practicing visualizing things you can improve your memory, your reading speed, understanding, and general intelligence in the long run.
It's worth noting that we learn using all of our senses, not just visual, but in regards to text and 'traditional' learning, visual is basically all there is. (Even if you are 'hearing' words, these are being made into images in the brain for your understanding, even blind people from birth think in images, mostly shapes and not images like we see though)
It's true that most people subvocalize while they read with their 'inner voice' or outloud even, and this tremendously slows down their reading, and removing this is a good goal.
We think in images, even if we don't realize it on the surface. Our brain works by stimulus>response, like a pattern generator. When a stimulus, such as the word 'cat', stimulates the brain, the image of a cat or whatever 'cat' means to you will appear, even if for a split moment that you don't even realize, as an image. Most people are desensitized to this phenomenon unless they are very visual in their daily life - people such as artists or inventors.
Simply by practicing visualizing things you can improve your memory, your reading speed, understanding, and general intelligence in the long run.
It's worth noting that we learn using all of our senses, not just visual, but in regards to text and 'traditional' learning, visual is basically all there is. (Even if you are 'hearing' words, these are being made into images in the brain for your understanding, even blind people from birth think in images, mostly shapes and not images like we see though)
Re: Speed reading
By the way, this image aspect of our brain is why we can memorize this easily:
The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
and this is almost impossible, because no images come to mind (same amount of characters):
010 01100 111 011001 0110 001 000 100 0110 00 011 0011 1011100 01 010 0 11110 11 11010.
The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
and this is almost impossible, because no images come to mind (same amount of characters):
010 01100 111 011001 0110 001 000 100 0110 00 011 0011 1011100 01 010 0 11110 11 11010.
Re: Speed reading
I rather think it's because there's a lot more information in the binary text.
I mean 010 doesn't mean anything to you, so you have to remember three characters, whereas 'the' is basically one piece of information. You should make a comparison with a much larger text or a smaller binary, in order to match them. E.g.
The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
001101101
I mean 010 doesn't mean anything to you, so you have to remember three characters, whereas 'the' is basically one piece of information. You should make a comparison with a much larger text or a smaller binary, in order to match them. E.g.
The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
001101101
Re: Speed reading
the whole concept is that yes it's impossible to memorize long strands of characters (numbers or words, the same thing would have happened if I had written the sentence I used in some obscure mayan language) which don't have a recognizable pattern to us in the form of images.
there is the same amount of characters to be memorized in both the numbers and words, however the words contain much more information than the long binary code does. There is currently no system of transforming the short binary code I listed into as much detail and complex meaning than the short sentence I wrote, so you have it backwards.
How can you possibly say there is more information in the binary text??
there is the same amount of characters to be memorized in both the numbers and words, however the words contain much more information than the long binary code does. There is currently no system of transforming the short binary code I listed into as much detail and complex meaning than the short sentence I wrote, so you have it backwards.
How can you possibly say there is more information in the binary text??
Re: Speed reading
For me as a human there is. For the binary text I have remember 68 single characters, for the normal text I have to remember 19 words which I've come across a million times before. So if the 68 digits are matched down to 19 (or it should be even less), than we can make a much better test of which one we can remember easier.
I mean not more information in the sense that it's more meaningful, but something like more data to process. I get your concept, it's just that the example seems a bit flawed to me.
I mean not more information in the sense that it's more meaningful, but something like more data to process. I get your concept, it's just that the example seems a bit flawed to me.
Re: Speed reading
You are not making any sense - you have come across the numbers '1' and '0' just as often or more often than the words. You can 'group' the numbers together, as I did, to be fair. I created spaces between them, like a phone number. You are missing the point also, which is that the reason the numbers are harder in a fair match is because they don't provoke images for ordinary people. The amount of data is the same, you are simply biased in saying there isn't, you haven't shown anything suggesting there is more data in the number sequence other than claiming there is more data. The characters are the same. The words hold more meaning. "data" is something you're inventing to defend a point which is also clouding you from grasping the essence of the post - which is to explain how the mind works in part.
Your original comment, that 010 doesn't mean anything to me, but 'the' does, so that 'the' is easier to memorize, is EXACTLY what I was portraying with that example.
But for some reason you saw the point of my whole post as the flaw. "meaning", as you said it, is expressed as images in our brain. imagine if you could not visualize at all - how could you understand anything? when we are doing math, such as 2+2, we have learned the answer just by identifying the shape of the simplistic problem, but originally, we had to learn by counting 'ok this many fingers' or 'this many sheep', put them together, and take a 'look' at how many that made. that is how we learn and that's all I'm saying. In respect to speed reading, it's obvious that if we are better visualizers, we can not only read better and faster, but can also memorize and comprehend what we read better, because images will be more vivid and easily manipulated, to piece together into concepts.
Your original comment, that 010 doesn't mean anything to me, but 'the' does, so that 'the' is easier to memorize, is EXACTLY what I was portraying with that example.
But for some reason you saw the point of my whole post as the flaw. "meaning", as you said it, is expressed as images in our brain. imagine if you could not visualize at all - how could you understand anything? when we are doing math, such as 2+2, we have learned the answer just by identifying the shape of the simplistic problem, but originally, we had to learn by counting 'ok this many fingers' or 'this many sheep', put them together, and take a 'look' at how many that made. that is how we learn and that's all I'm saying. In respect to speed reading, it's obvious that if we are better visualizers, we can not only read better and faster, but can also memorize and comprehend what we read better, because images will be more vivid and easily manipulated, to piece together into concepts.
Re: Speed reading
You say we connect a number to an object, like sheep or fingers. And when you do this you will automatically need to use a synonym for quantity. Like "how much" or "this many". But what does quantity mean? It can only be described by examples of numbers. But those examples must be connected to real world examples. So you end up begging the question. There is no real cause and effect here.
There is still a big debate going on about numbers as quantities. It's a truth in itself. Exact. A priori knowledge.
Things in the real world can be categorized by the use of their features. But when you try to do this with a number you will fail miserably. A number is something exact that can't be described by features, because it only appears to us as a sort of shadow, a ghost of our own interpreting system. Something that is between the lines. The illusionary boundaries of the boundless.
It also isn't a feature. Because if it was a feature you could observe it. Like with color. You could say that color is determined by the interpretation of our brain of the light reflecting certain wavelengths. It's direct information. Numbers in that sense are different.
It's pretty much the same discussion as with cause and effect. David Hume said: "power and necessity... are... qualities of perceptions, not of objects... felt by the soul and not perceived externally in bodies". It's the same as for numbers, it's something that is defined naturally by succesors and precessors, but it is never actually perceived.
Excuse me for my incapabillity to express myself in english when it comes to philosophy, but I hope you caught my point.
There is still a big debate going on about numbers as quantities. It's a truth in itself. Exact. A priori knowledge.
Things in the real world can be categorized by the use of their features. But when you try to do this with a number you will fail miserably. A number is something exact that can't be described by features, because it only appears to us as a sort of shadow, a ghost of our own interpreting system. Something that is between the lines. The illusionary boundaries of the boundless.
It also isn't a feature. Because if it was a feature you could observe it. Like with color. You could say that color is determined by the interpretation of our brain of the light reflecting certain wavelengths. It's direct information. Numbers in that sense are different.
It's pretty much the same discussion as with cause and effect. David Hume said: "power and necessity... are... qualities of perceptions, not of objects... felt by the soul and not perceived externally in bodies". It's the same as for numbers, it's something that is defined naturally by succesors and precessors, but it is never actually perceived.
Excuse me for my incapabillity to express myself in english when it comes to philosophy, but I hope you caught my point.
Re: Speed reading
Yes. Probably I misunderstood something.panacea wrote: Your original comment, that 010 doesn't mean anything to me, but 'the' does, so that 'the' is easier to memorize, is EXACTLY what I was portraying with that example.
What about this example, which one will be memorized faster?
0 and
0 jumped
1 fire
0 the
1 get
1 brown
0 the
0 a
1 water
0 went
0 of
1 hydrant
0 log
1 The
1 drink
1 a
0 to
1 over
0 to
1 fox
I'm in the same boat.. it's hard to think in a foreign languageoverkees wrote:Excuse me for my incapabillity to express myself in english when it comes to philosophy, but I hope you caught my point.
Re: Speed reading
the numbers would be memorized faster (with a slight effort) because it is such a short string [20 numbers], within our concentration abilities (such as with phone numbers, in this case it would be two phone numbers -- hardly a task given enough time). We do have 'temporary' memory capabilities even to deal with sign (this means non imagery) language in such a short character string.
however this doesn't hold true once you get past a certain number of imageless characters (different for everybody) unless you get a mnemonic system. Words on the other hand, which elicit vivid images, can easily be memorized once you understand how connections are formed in our brain. In every day life, we see relationships between different objects, such as a leaf on a tree branch, the branch going to the main part of the tree and then that goes down to the ground which then goes to our feet, etc. The most intuitive way to understand this is that if you heard an extremely interesting long story, you could probably repeat it (paraphrasing). The repetition wont be identical because you will interpret the images you stored with fragments, different context, etc, but you are still able to remember very long 'stories', if they are interesting enough (which sparks our attention and imagination, the key). However, if someone told you that your life depended on getting 30% of the numbers in a list of 70 phone numbers after hearing someone read the list to you once, your attention would be very alert (your life depends on it), but unless you had developed a mnemonic system, you wont have any visualization hearing the numbers and will lose your life. Likewise, if people spouted long lists of random words, you won't be able to 'connect' the images in a relationship unless you have previously trained your mind to do so, and will also fail. We are only good at what we have been practicing our whole lives, which are words in a meaningful linear pattern. We are perfectly capable of memorizing 'random' data though, once we make the data into images and then connect them.
however this doesn't hold true once you get past a certain number of imageless characters (different for everybody) unless you get a mnemonic system. Words on the other hand, which elicit vivid images, can easily be memorized once you understand how connections are formed in our brain. In every day life, we see relationships between different objects, such as a leaf on a tree branch, the branch going to the main part of the tree and then that goes down to the ground which then goes to our feet, etc. The most intuitive way to understand this is that if you heard an extremely interesting long story, you could probably repeat it (paraphrasing). The repetition wont be identical because you will interpret the images you stored with fragments, different context, etc, but you are still able to remember very long 'stories', if they are interesting enough (which sparks our attention and imagination, the key). However, if someone told you that your life depended on getting 30% of the numbers in a list of 70 phone numbers after hearing someone read the list to you once, your attention would be very alert (your life depends on it), but unless you had developed a mnemonic system, you wont have any visualization hearing the numbers and will lose your life. Likewise, if people spouted long lists of random words, you won't be able to 'connect' the images in a relationship unless you have previously trained your mind to do so, and will also fail. We are only good at what we have been practicing our whole lives, which are words in a meaningful linear pattern. We are perfectly capable of memorizing 'random' data though, once we make the data into images and then connect them.
Re: Speed reading
@overkees
numbers are just ways of dividing things equally
you don't need to have any concept of numbers at all to know that 2 people is more than 1 person standing in front of you,
just as wild animals can tell when they are 'outnumbered' merely by merging together the sizes of 2 animals to be a 'bigger' animal, or the like..
there are many ways to get around 'numbers'
but you guys are missing the point here, it's really simple, we think in the visual realm. reading has to do with thinking. if you want to speed up thinking, get rid of things slowing you down (like subvocalization), and speed up your thinking (become a better visualizer through practice). memory is the same way, if you can turn everything into a 'sensation', preferably visual ones, you would have a fantastic memory.
numbers are just ways of dividing things equally
you don't need to have any concept of numbers at all to know that 2 people is more than 1 person standing in front of you,
just as wild animals can tell when they are 'outnumbered' merely by merging together the sizes of 2 animals to be a 'bigger' animal, or the like..
there are many ways to get around 'numbers'
but you guys are missing the point here, it's really simple, we think in the visual realm. reading has to do with thinking. if you want to speed up thinking, get rid of things slowing you down (like subvocalization), and speed up your thinking (become a better visualizer through practice). memory is the same way, if you can turn everything into a 'sensation', preferably visual ones, you would have a fantastic memory.
Re: Speed reading
I wasn't responding to the memory/visualization part. I was just saying that your example of numbers (that with the fingers and the sheep) is not a good example. We can't see numbers, but like the problem of causation of Hume, it's a facet of our own mind.
It's therefore a mistake to think that counting comes into the picture when we start to visualize or see more objects that seem to share alot of the same features. It was already there. It's exactly the other way around. At least in my opinion. It's still a big debate in philosophy. Epistemology.
I'm agreeing on you when it comes to memory. Our memory works almost totally with visualization skills, by using the patterns (I believe holographic patterns) that are already preprogrammed in our brain throughout evolution to associate it with our own visual input at a given time. I also believe that we can expend these patterns by experiencing more and thus adding more patterns that become associated with eachother. But I think auditive patterns are also important.
It's therefore a mistake to think that counting comes into the picture when we start to visualize or see more objects that seem to share alot of the same features. It was already there. It's exactly the other way around. At least in my opinion. It's still a big debate in philosophy. Epistemology.
I'm agreeing on you when it comes to memory. Our memory works almost totally with visualization skills, by using the patterns (I believe holographic patterns) that are already preprogrammed in our brain throughout evolution to associate it with our own visual input at a given time. I also believe that we can expend these patterns by experiencing more and thus adding more patterns that become associated with eachother. But I think auditive patterns are also important.
Re: Speed reading
"The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water."
This can be translated into a single, although complex and animated image. I agree that visualization makes it easier to remember, as well as connecting them into a single concept.
separated, there are 8 pieces of information, Brown, Fox, Jumping over, log, going to, fire hydrant, drinking, water. Although you can't compare it neccesarily to an 8 digit number, because as panacea pointed out, we have tools allowing us to memorize numbers, grouping etc. 12345678 is super easy, or 1 800 4933 can also be broken up more easily.
9 Q % " 国 я fail /
Above is another 8 pieces of information, which for me have no way to visualize, other than memorizing the way it looks, and no way of making connections
Fox, duck, hen, elephant, mouse, human, cobra, squirl. Here are 8 pieces of information than can be visualized, but not connected.
So if we compare
A - The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
B - 1 800 4933
C - 9 Q % " 国 я fail /
D - Fox, duck, hen, elephant, mouse, human, cobra, squirl.
E - Orange juice in the morning, Iron Dildo in your asshole tearing you up inside, sweaty cupcakes, alarmclock blaring at 2am while a bright light burns your retna, a funeral for 10 000 yellow cats, your robotic neighbor who won't stop crying about Orion's Belt, being hung upside down in a high gravity chamber-the blood rushing to your head while you vomit blood, being a child and hugging your best friend who you'll never see again-the smell of their hair and warm tears on your cheeks.
A has connections and images. (Anything else I'm missing?)
B has connections, no images.
C has nothing I can think of.
D has images, no connections.
E 8 complex ideas which are not connected, but very vivid.
I think this is a fair comparison. Not counting E, because I'm not sure if it's comparable, to me the example A with the images and connections is easiest (short term at least), B comes second, D is third, and C is obviously last.
Although (and I think this fits with panacea's theory) someone with superior imaging capabilities might find D easier than B. Now I think E is still easier than C, demonstrating the power of imagery (not just visual).
On the speed reading topic - I've heard from quite a few people that it doesn't work (for practical purposes), like you've said. It's really too bad, because I'd love to increase my reading speed, although comprehension and memory would also be great. I guess just reading more and more will increase my visualization.
I've read different things about eliminating subvocalisation, some that it's good, some that it's counterproductive. What is a realistic speed for me to go for? Or maybe I should be happy with 213 and focus on things other than speed.
This can be translated into a single, although complex and animated image. I agree that visualization makes it easier to remember, as well as connecting them into a single concept.
separated, there are 8 pieces of information, Brown, Fox, Jumping over, log, going to, fire hydrant, drinking, water. Although you can't compare it neccesarily to an 8 digit number, because as panacea pointed out, we have tools allowing us to memorize numbers, grouping etc. 12345678 is super easy, or 1 800 4933 can also be broken up more easily.
9 Q % " 国 я fail /
Above is another 8 pieces of information, which for me have no way to visualize, other than memorizing the way it looks, and no way of making connections
Fox, duck, hen, elephant, mouse, human, cobra, squirl. Here are 8 pieces of information than can be visualized, but not connected.
So if we compare
A - The brown fox jumped over the log and went to the fire hydrant to get a drink of water.
B - 1 800 4933
C - 9 Q % " 国 я fail /
D - Fox, duck, hen, elephant, mouse, human, cobra, squirl.
E - Orange juice in the morning, Iron Dildo in your asshole tearing you up inside, sweaty cupcakes, alarmclock blaring at 2am while a bright light burns your retna, a funeral for 10 000 yellow cats, your robotic neighbor who won't stop crying about Orion's Belt, being hung upside down in a high gravity chamber-the blood rushing to your head while you vomit blood, being a child and hugging your best friend who you'll never see again-the smell of their hair and warm tears on your cheeks.
A has connections and images. (Anything else I'm missing?)
B has connections, no images.
C has nothing I can think of.
D has images, no connections.
E 8 complex ideas which are not connected, but very vivid.
I think this is a fair comparison. Not counting E, because I'm not sure if it's comparable, to me the example A with the images and connections is easiest (short term at least), B comes second, D is third, and C is obviously last.
Although (and I think this fits with panacea's theory) someone with superior imaging capabilities might find D easier than B. Now I think E is still easier than C, demonstrating the power of imagery (not just visual).
On the speed reading topic - I've heard from quite a few people that it doesn't work (for practical purposes), like you've said. It's really too bad, because I'd love to increase my reading speed, although comprehension and memory would also be great. I guess just reading more and more will increase my visualization.
I've read different things about eliminating subvocalisation, some that it's good, some that it's counterproductive. What is a realistic speed for me to go for? Or maybe I should be happy with 213 and focus on things other than speed.
Re: Speed reading
I guess I'm not good enough at wording what I'm trying to say
I wasn't making what I said up or coming up with it on the fly, I was paraphrasing what I had learned from memory/learning experts from russia, but there is nothing to be gained by trying to help you guys out if you already are full of your own ideas, or try to figure this out logically without having the perspective of mastering memory/learning things quickly
I wasn't making what I said up or coming up with it on the fly, I was paraphrasing what I had learned from memory/learning experts from russia, but there is nothing to be gained by trying to help you guys out if you already are full of your own ideas, or try to figure this out logically without having the perspective of mastering memory/learning things quickly